BGFalcons82;599674 wrote:I know what you are saying, but let me take you back to the election of 1992....Clinton and Carville extolled this mantra daily: "We have the worst economy of the past 50 years". "We are in the worst recession since the Great Depression". "it's the economy, stupid." So...Clinton's solution to a bad economy and a recession was NOT to lower tax rates as it is today. So you are saying he came in during a great economic expansion and his "hands off" approach was best? If the economy was in such great shape, me thinks Bush's daddy would have easily won, as he had 90% approval ratings in 1991.

Clinton actually raised taxes, if I remember right, during 1994-1995.
This economic downturn is different, much worse than 1993.

ptown_trojans_1;599687 wrote:Clinton actually raised taxes, if I remember right, during 1994-1995.
This economic downturn is different, much worse than 1993.

It was '93, and it in part (if not overwhelmingly) led to the GOP takeover in Congress in the '94 election. I recall watching the results from our college dorm - never saw so many historically DEM seats (particularly in the southern states) go GOP.

I really find it interesting that so many Dems are against extending these tax cuts because "it will add to the deficit"...when they were for the varied Stimulus packages that amounted to printing money.......

Hmmmmmmm........

HMMMMM........ Now they will b the OBAMA tax cuts.....

You mean just like McCain was against giving millionaires a tax cut now he is for it?

wkfan;600468 wrote:I really find it interesting that so many Dems are against extending these tax cuts because "it will add to the deficit"

I'd love to see a reporter point out that, technically, only SPENDING can increase the deficit.

gut;601394 wrote:I'd love to see a reporter point out that, technically, only SPENDING can increase the deficit.

Certainly extending existing tax rates for a couple of years does not. The whole idea that they're giving anyone a "tax cut" is nonsense.

queencitybuckeye;601583 wrote:Certainly extending existing tax rates for a couple of years does not. The whole idea that they're giving anyone a "tax cut" is nonsense.

Exactly, I'm tired of hearing people on TV and in politics call these tax cuts, its only a cut if the rates are lowered. They are not being lowered, they are being kept the same. Just because they decided to NOT RAISE our taxes, does not make it a tax cut.

If they reduce fica withholding I suppose that is a cut, but that is a thread to itself.

jmog;601645 wrote:Exactly, I'm tired of hearing people on TV and in politics call these tax cuts, its only a cut if the rates are lowered. They are not being lowered, they are being kept the same. Just because they decided to NOT RAISE our taxes, does not make it a tax cut.

Sure it does...just like reducing the rate of growth is a spending cut.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-15/why-the-left-hates-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-commentary-by-caroline-baum.html

Excellent piece ..... and noteworthy is the part about the mobility of those moving up and down in the income quartiles etc...

What annoys me is all the tripe about tax cuts for the "wealthy." Is that some massive conspiracy to conflate "earning a good income" with "being wealthy"?

A good friend is a doctor. His household income is above the $250k mark. His net worth is likely lower than anyone else on the OC (on the order of $300K in the red). He's not wealthy--he's a high-earner with a significantly negative net worth. Compare that to a couple I know who inherited a massive family trust. Their net worth is on the order of $20 million or so, but their combined annual income is in the upper five figures.

One of these couples is wealthy, and one of these couples is a high-income family. Yet if you listened to the conflation pundits around, you'd think that the doctor is just rolling in the money and deserves punitive tax measures, while the multi-millionaire couple with a five-figure income is merely middle class.

This is just ridiculous. There are plenty of high earners who make good money but are far poorer than most people in the US--essentially any young professional couple fits the bill. By calling them wealthy and punitively taxing them and yet letting truly wealthy boomers claim to be middle-class, we're seeing even more generational warfare. We're taxing the hard-working young people to subsidize the retirement of boomers who overspent for decades, regardless of their current wealth or consumption habits. How is this fair, and how does this make sense?

The tax cuts affect all high earners, not just the wealthy ones, and they give breaks to all lower earners, not just the poor ones.

Good points and questions, FFT.

I really would like the people who are against the "tax cuts" to argue and explain the (if any) counter points to FFT's post.

What bothers me most about the tax cut rhetoric is all the pundits talking about how giving tax breaks for the wealthy doesn't stimulate the economy as well as tax breaks for the poor because the wealthy are more likely to save/invest.

If the fundamental goal of the tax code is "fairness," we'll reach a different solution than if the fundamental goal is "stimulating the economy." If the goal is the latter, as seems to be the case, then why not make everyone take a test to find out if they're responsible or irresponsible with their money? If we want people to spend money, let's just give tax cuts to spendthrifts and raise their credit card limits. Giving money directly to irresponsible people (some of whom are wealthy and some of whom are poor) is a much more efficient way to spur the economy in the short term than simply giving it to poor (some but not all of whom are irresponsible and spend more).

That is, if we really just want to stimulate the economy and don't care about fairness, why not just cut out the middleman and be explicit about what we're doing?

The legislation has passed in the Senate, the House will be taking action on it as early as today.

"What bothers me most about the tax cut rhetoric is all the pundits talking about how giving tax breaks for the wealthy doesn't stimulate the economy as well as tax breaks for the poor because the wealthy are more likely to save/invest."

Ahh, the Keith Olbermann/Nancy Pelosi argument - unemployment creates jobs!

For any representative of government to tell a producer in this country, from whom they are already confiscating 50% or more of their productive labor, that they should pay more is tantamount to assault; and to tell them they should pay more because government has already spent it is insanity.

The revolt should live on until every last one of these radical socilaists/marxists has been thrown into the street.

These "lame ducks" just flipped us the bird. Now we know why they didn't do their jobs and pass this pork-laden, budget-sucking, POS spending boondoggle BEFORE the election. These assholes really do have the country's best interests at heart, don't they?

Isn't this a bill that lays out how revenue is generated by the federal government? Does not article 1 section 7 say All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Clearly this bill has originated in the senate through a negotiated compromise between the executive branch and the minority leader of the senate. Now initially passed by the senate and sent to the house for its approval. The lame duck house was circumvented because it was perceived as more partisan and the senate would be a much easier venue to craft a compromise deal.

Also the executive branch sees the lame duck congress as more favorable route to deal with this issue. The house should defend its constitutional authority and vote this bill down and demand that the executive deal with them in writing a bill. The senate is free to propose amendments to the bill originating in the house.

The house needs to defend itself against this power grab by the senate. Where are the leaders with some balls in the house to stand up to this? My guess is as usual they will once again throw the constitution under the bus for political expediency. Just as the penned words on the original document are slowly fading away over time, so is its power.

Arguably the deal is a fair compromise with where we are at. I would like to see some concrete efforts to cut spending first. Then lets talk about what taxes could be raised that would actually generate long term revenue. I just can't get behind this circumventing of the constitution.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1687936.html

redistribution on steroids ................ change we can believe in ............

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40633

GOP should filibuster omnibus bill ----------- THANK YOU NEWT !!!!!!

Yep sounds like a lot of people were thumbing their nose. You all got fooled. Welcome the new boss, same as the old boss.

The bill and accompanying reports contained 6,714 earmarks costing $8.3 billion, Coburn said. Twenty-three Republicans and four Democrats who had voted for the immediate ban on earmarks ended up with pet projects in the bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121605258.html

QuakerOats;603116 wrote:http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40633

GOP should filibuster omnibus bill ----------- THANK YOU NEWT !!!!!!

Reid canned the bill. He will try and get a Continuous Resolution (CR) to fund the government til the end of the year. That will probably happen, as if it does not, the government will shutdown Saturday at midnight.

ptown_trojans_1;604086 wrote:if it does not, the government will shutdown Saturday at midnight.

Our challenge being to notice any particular difference in terms of anything useful being accomplished.

ptown_trojans_1;604086 wrote:the government will shutdown Saturday at midnight.

Will there still be Christmas if the government shuts down? I am scared. Please congress don't shut the government down. How am I going to break this news to my children? Will their Xbox still work? I just don't know what I am going to do.